Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, farmpuma, just brew it!
Flying Fox wrote:Man, I'm testing my new work machine over the weekend and wham! A 5102 is what it got immediately. It's only a an Opty 1214 so I don't think it has much chance. I would actually like it to be on my E2160 rig so I can see how bad this bad boy is. Life sucks, I guess.
Flying Fox wrote:Flying Fox wrote:Man, I'm testing my new work machine over the weekend and wham! A 5102 is what it got immediately. It's only a an Opty 1214 so I don't think it has much chance. I would actually like it to be on my E2160 rig so I can see how bad this bad boy is. Life sucks, I guess.
Just checked on the work box and it takes 1.5 hours just to process one step of 5102. I have a feeling that it may not make it.
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Oh which box? My "puny" AM2 Opty at 2.2GHz (can't beat the Core 2's) is doing 1.5 hours per step. Granted it is running on a Ubuntu VM (again 64-bit guest on 32-bit host FTW) so it may be that much faster than WinSMP?I just killed my 5102 and DL'd a new WU. Luckily I got a 2653.
I was at 7% on the 5102, and it was taking 2 hours per step.
Meadows wrote:And this is the part where your uninformed trolling makes you look bad. At 2 hours per step it means it will take 8 and 1/3 days, meaning that box will miss the 8-day deadline (at least they have the decency to give this monster WU a longer deadline than the usual 3-4 days) anyway. On my box it is going to finish in 6 and 1/4 days so I am going to let it finish. I'm testing my new box while I am slowly installing apps and moving data. So I have time.This is the part where you have to pick between philanthropy and e-peen. Nice show of colours, people.
Flying Fox wrote:And this is the part where your uninformed trolling makes you look bad. At 2 hours per step it means it will take 8 and 1/3 days, meaning that box will miss the 8-day deadline (at least they have the decency to give this monster WU a longer deadline) anyway. On my box it is going to finish in 6 and 1/4 days so I am going to let it finish. I'm testing my new box anyway while I am slowly installing apps and moving data. So I have time.
Meadows wrote:
About this project however, I will say this: some people might have slower machines but want to finish it anyway, so this 8-day deadline is a rather dumb move and should be changed to be in proportion to the work you're about to complete.
Now if you're one of the people who can complete those pieces, that's good, go get them tiger. Somebody should complain to... who or whatever is in charge of the project.
Flying Fox wrote:Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Oh which box? My "puny" AM2 Opty at 2.2GHz (can't beat the Core 2's) is doing 1.5 hours per step. Granted it is running on a Ubuntu VM (again 64-bit guest on 32-bit host FTW) so it may be that much faster than WinSMP?I just killed my 5102 and DL'd a new WU. Luckily I got a 2653.
I was at 7% on the 5102, and it was taking 2 hours per step.
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Stanford doesn't want just any machine folding these WUs. They are intended to be run on multi-core systems with lots of power. Slowpokes need not apply.
The deadlines exist so that Stanford will finish a project with ALL WUs folded. The longer they wait, the more likely something went wrong on the folder's side and the WU will never be returned. That's why Stanford has a deadlines (both prefered and final), so that they can re-release a WU to complete the research.
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:One would assume their stance would be More the merrier. Why would they want to limit the number of machines able to crunch this WU?Stanford doesn't want just any machine folding these WUs. They are intended to be run on multi-core systems with lots of power. Slowpokes need not apply.
lordtottuu wrote:Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:One would assume their stance would be More the merrier. Why would they want to limit the number of machines able to crunch this WU?Stanford doesn't want just any machine folding these WUs. They are intended to be run on multi-core systems with lots of power. Slowpokes need not apply.
lordtottuu wrote:Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Stanford doesn't want just any machine folding these WUs. They are intended to be run on multi-core systems with lots of power. Slowpokes need not apply.
One would assume their stance would be More the merrier. Why would they want to limit the number of machines able to crunch this WU?
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Flying Fox wrote:Flying Fox wrote:Man, I'm testing my new work machine over the weekend and wham! A 5102 is what it got immediately. It's only a an Opty 1214 so I don't think it has much chance. I would actually like it to be on my E2160 rig so I can see how bad this bad boy is. Life sucks, I guess.
Just checked on the work box and it takes 1.5 hours just to process one step of 5102. I have a feeling that it may not make it.
I'm wondering if I should tactically avoid this WU, and how I would go about doing such a thing. I've never tried to avoid WUs in the past, as I figure it's all needed research, but this guy is ridiculous.
jeffry55 wrote:
Don't try to game the system for points Jed. Once you start doing that, you are heading for the dark side of the force! Don't become a points whore!! Roll with the big crunchers. The points come around.
Besides, check out our numbers. We are heading in the right direction.
Ragnar Dan wrote:My GPU's are being dominated by the crappy 5903/5904 1888-point WU's, and they really waste time on my machines.
Ragnar Dan wrote:My GPU's are being dominated by the crappy 5903/5904 1888-point WU's, and they really waste time on my machines.
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Ragnar Dan wrote:My GPU's are being dominated by the crappy 5903/5904 1888-point WU's, and they really waste time on my machines.
ARRGH! I got those very same ones right now
Ragnar Dan wrote:I don't know why they're not fast on 285 or 295 cards, if they're fast on your 260. Meanwhile I'm losing about 5000 PPD with them on my 2 cards compared to what they produced before the change to crappy WU's, and about 3800 PPD compared to more recent WU's.
jeffry55 wrote:Ragnar Dan wrote:I don't know why they're not fast on 285 or 295 cards, if they're fast on your 260. Meanwhile I'm losing about 5000 PPD with them on my 2 cards compared to what they produced before the change to crappy WU's, and about 3800 PPD compared to more recent WU's.
Maybe the new NVidia cards are just too darn advanced to crunch them effectively. Need a little yester-tech to do the job right!
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:jeffry55 wrote:Ragnar Dan wrote:I don't know why they're not fast on 285 or 295 cards, if they're fast on your 260. Meanwhile I'm losing about 5000 PPD with them on my 2 cards compared to what they produced before the change to crappy WU's, and about 3800 PPD compared to more recent WU's.
Maybe the new NVidia cards are just too darn advanced to crunch them effectively. Need a little yester-tech to do the job right!
A 5904 vs a 5774